The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content.
Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience.
I mean... that's an interesting assumption...
But, time is not a risk.
Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time.
Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it.
I definitely think time combined with the chance of me losing a lot of my loot upon death, maybe even my presumably expensive ship, would deter me from venturing out there without significant insurance and if there’s not consequences like corruption; I feel like everyone will just be killing everyone else all the time, because of the added incentive that isn’t in other games. If there isn’t corruption out there, there should at the very least be a bounty system.
What so you mean you do drop loot on death already.
Corruption is a punishment, the point of corruption is deter griefing. It is why some people want to test the corruption that are more PvE players because they believe it will stop people from pvping them.
Hence meaning they want to stop pvp on the Ocean it isn't about risk, word is just being used because it is convenient instead of what they actually want to say, which is people should be punished so they arent motivated to flag.
There is far more risk when it is open pvp and everyone knows that, everything is a potential threat. When you see a boat in the distance it will be a red flag where it could be foe or friend.
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
There is some word gymnastics going on here.
Risk is evaluated against the reward.
Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk.
So, as Steven said in the past:
You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption.
You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant.
Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
I think we are talking about different things.
When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items?
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
There is some word gymnastics going on here.
Risk is evaluated against the reward.
Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk.
So, as Steven said in the past:
You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption.
You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant.
Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
I think we are talking about different things.
When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items?
Yes, i'm talking about the risks associated with having corruption.
Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half.
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land.
In my opinion saying that corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it is like saying the law isn't a "risk" unless you choose to break it.
Obviously you might break the law unknowingly or by accident, but you can't become corrupted by accident, still I believe that the analogy stands.
You are probably able to make that sentence make sense, but I believe there's another simpler explanation which is more logical: corruption is a deterrent against attacking other players, regardless if you'll do it or not, but it doesn't stop you from doing it. Is it good or is it bad? I don't know, but I don't think that's the topic of the current discussion.
Regarding the idea of raising the death penalty, I believe that you didn't understand Dygz' point. He's talking about the fact that non-combatants lose twice as much as combatants, therefore it doesn't matter if you're an aggressor, a victim, fight back or not, a PvE or a PvP player, the death penalties will be cut in half. The fact is that the mechanic which takes care of how much loot is lost on a owPvP death was removed, so now all sorts of "problems" exist.
You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption.
You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant.
Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
Wait, what? Yeah, if corruption is removed from anywhere then the risks associated with it are also removed, that's the whole point of the debate: should they remove or should they not remove corruption from places? And, more importantly, why.
I also think that there's some confusion going on, at least I'm getting confused by the wording (or mental gymnastics, not sure yet). You'll only become corrupted if you choose to kill a non-combatant: true. However, you will always be subject to the corruption system regardless if you are the aggressor or the victim and that ultimately adds risk to the open world PvP. The aggressor has the power to decide if they will turn purple and somewhat decide if they will turn red. The victim has the power to decide if they will turn or remain purple, remain green or turn the aggressor red by not fighting back.
For that reason, because people have to consider the risk vs. reward when engaging in owPvP, the ocean has now lost a lot of its risk, because, as an aggressor, having the chance of losing gear is typically riskier and more dangerous than the certainty of losing resources on death.
I believe that everything I said is logical and factual, however, I'm not stating that this will make naval gameplay better or worse, I just think that nobody is able to state that either.
🎶Galo é Galo o resto é bosta🎶
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
There is some word gymnastics going on here.
Risk is evaluated against the reward.
Risk of corruption exists independently of whether you chose to risk it or not. You actually make your choice based on this risk.
So, as Steven said in the past:
You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption.
You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant.
Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
I think we are talking about different things.
When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items?
Yes, i'm talking about the risks associated with having corruption.
Now I understand the confusion.. when I talk about 'risk of corruption' I mean before a player makes the choice to go red.. Basically I am considering 'gaining corruption' as a risk in itself, not the risks a player has because he is already red.
Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half.
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land.
In my opinion saying that corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it is like saying the law isn't a "risk" unless you choose to break it.
Obviously you might break the law unknowingly or by accident, but you can't become corrupted by accident, still I believe that the analogy stands.
You are probably able to make that sentence make sense, but I believe there's another simpler explanation which is more logical: corruption is a deterrent against attacking other players, regardless if you'll do it or not, but it doesn't stop you from doing it. Is it good or is it bad? I don't know, but I don't think that's the topic of the current discussion.
Regarding the idea of raising the death penalty, I believe that you didn't understand Dygz' point. He's talking about the fact that non-combatants lose twice as much as combatants, therefore it doesn't matter if you're an aggressor, a victim, fight back or not, a PvE or a PvP player, the death penalties will be cut in half. The fact is that the mechanic which takes care of how much loot is lost on a owPvP death was removed, so now all sorts of "problems" exist.
You only have the risks associated with corruption if you have corruption.
You only have corruption if you choose to kill a none-combatant.
Just because you consider the risk vs the reward doesn't change the fact you will ultimately choose to take that risk.
Wait, what? Yeah, if corruption is removed from anywhere then the risks associated with it are also removed, that's the whole point of the debate: should they remove or should they not remove corruption from places? And, more importantly, why.
I also think that there's some confusion going on, at least I'm getting confused by the wording (or mental gymnastics, not sure yet). You'll only become corrupted if you choose to kill a non-combatant: true. However, you will always be subject to the corruption system regardless if you are the aggressor or the victim and that ultimately adds risk to the open world PvP. The aggressor has the power to decide if they will turn purple and somewhat decide if they will turn red. The victim has the power to decide if they will turn or remain purple, remain green or turn the aggressor red by not fighting back.
For that reason, because people have to consider the risk vs. reward when engaging in owPvP, the ocean has now lost a lot of its risk, because, as an aggressor, having the chance of losing gear is typically riskier and more dangerous than the certainty of losing resources on death.
I believe that everything I said is logical and factual, however, I'm not stating that this will make naval gameplay better or worse, I just think that nobody is able to state that either.
You are missing the point when you are talking about punishments in the term with corruption and law. You are fully aware that the punishment is extremely high as well, which means a punishment on your character out weighs any possible benefit of attacking people.
You are stating the obvious there is a dangerous level of risk because the punishment flags them and ensures they can't go to towns and are a target for everyone. All while ignoring or down playing the level of risk when it is open flagged pvp.
If people aren't flagging and fighting there is less overall risk because of the height of the punishment ensuring constant pvp doesn't go on between people like that.
End of the day you are not trying to defend the corruption system, you are simply trying to push towards PVE content on the sea so you don't get attacked. Yet none of you will be honest saying you just want pure pve and not PvX.
The risk for pvpers in the ocean is actually time tbh more than anything. The ocean are not realy know form being popping with content even in archage u could be sailing around for an hour before you manage to get 1-2 minutes worth of content.
Land generaly offers more content close together the ocean is rather vast and u can be out there for long time for little gameplay experience.
I mean... that's an interesting assumption...
But, time is not a risk.
Time is always a risk there nothing more valuable than time. if somone offers you a job for $10 and hour its not worth your time, farming mobs for gold is always calculated as gold per hour in games for a reason, Xp gain per hour everything comes back to time.
Time is what makes the world go round if anything its the most valuable currency in the world when it comes down to it.
I definitely think time combined with the chance of me losing a lot of my loot upon death, maybe even my presumably expensive ship, would deter me from venturing out there without significant insurance and if there’s not consequences like corruption; I feel like everyone will just be killing everyone else all the time, because of the added incentive that isn’t in other games. If there isn’t corruption out there, there should at the very least be a bounty system.
What so you mean you do drop loot on death already.
If my understanding is correct, a portion of gatherables will be dropped upon being killed by another player and can be looted.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
No it's more risk, you can be attacked at any time. Just because someone likes pvp doesn't mean it's less risk.
International waters answers why there's no Corruption, I suppose, but...
What does international waters have to do with why it's half normal death penalties there??
Because everyone is a combatant and when you are a combatant that's the death penalty just like on land. Why would you want to change the system even more? That's the only change really, everyone is purple in the open ocean right?
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
No it's more risk, you can be attacked at any time. Just because someone likes pvp doesn't mean it's less risk.
International waters answers why there's no Corruption, I suppose, but...
What does international waters have to do with why it's half normal death penalties there??
Because everyone is a combatant and when you are a combatant that's the death penalty just like on land. Why would you want to change the system even more? That's the only change really, everyone is purple in the open ocean right?
As for why the change, i guess so we can have pirates be a thing. I think it makes sense for the open ocean to be kind of lawless.
You could be attacked at any time before.
The 'defender' was in the same situation on land. The only 'power' you had on land was 'the option to give Corruption instead at the cost of materials'.
Time is an investment, maybe, but not a risk - especially when there is no risk of Corruption and death penalties are cut in half.
Corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it.
If the death penalty being reduce on the ocean is an issue then let's raise it, maybe it could be higher than it is on land.
@mcstackerson@Dygz
imo, the destruction of a high tier ship should cost a lot of materials to repair. That would ensure there actually being a high risk
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Doesn’t seem to be.
And I might circumvent that - if I were going to play - by using an aquatic mount to explore the Open Seas, rather than a ship.
Didn't we discuss this several times in the other open sea pvp thread?
I apologize if this has already been answered. I just had a specific question.
No need to apologize. And to say it was answered wouldn't be entirely accurate. More or less discussed over several viewpoints. I suggest checking it out, but there's a lot to read.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
No it's more risk, you can be attacked at any time. Just because someone likes pvp doesn't mean it's less risk.
International waters answers why there's no Corruption, I suppose, but...
What does international waters have to do with why it's half normal death penalties there??
Because everyone is a combatant and when you are a combatant that's the death penalty just like on land. Why would you want to change the system even more? That's the only change really, everyone is purple in the open ocean right?
As for why the change, i guess so we can have pirates be a thing. I think it makes sense for the open ocean to be kind of lawless.
You could be attacked at any time before.
The 'defender' was in the same situation on land. The only 'power' you had on land was 'the option to give Corruption instead at the cost of materials'.
Yea, but the protections are gone. You CAN be attacked on land, but you can be a noncombatant on land which offers you some sort of protection because you won't seem worth killing. If you do you will be considered a murderer and bounty hunters will go after you, among other things. Doesn't happen in the sea.
Steven said that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities and... with greater rewards comes greater risk.
But, for PvPers, it's reduced risk:
It's half the normal death penalties, inlcuding half normal dropped mats/resources.
And no risk of gaining Corruption.
Increased chance of PvP combat is a boon for PvPers; not a bane, so...
It's not really a risk v reward thing.
It's really just: with greater rewards comes more PvP combat.
No it's more risk, you can be attacked at any time. Just because someone likes pvp doesn't mean it's less risk.
International waters answers why there's no Corruption, I suppose, but...
What does international waters have to do with why it's half normal death penalties there??
Because everyone is a combatant and when you are a combatant that's the death penalty just like on land. Why would you want to change the system even more? That's the only change really, everyone is purple in the open ocean right?
As for why the change, i guess so we can have pirates be a thing. I think it makes sense for the open ocean to be kind of lawless.
You could be attacked at any time before.
The 'defender' was in the same situation on land. The only 'power' you had on land was 'the option to give Corruption instead at the cost of materials'.
Yea, but the protections are gone. You CAN be attacked on land, but you can be a noncombatant on land which offers you some sort of protection because you won't seem worth killing. If you do you will be considered a murderer and bounty hunters will go after you. Doesn't happen in the sea.
Oh ok, I thought you were talking about both sides, not just the 'defender/victim' side.
You are missing the point when you are talking about punishments in the term with corruption and law. You are fully aware that the punishment is extremely high as well, which means a punishment on your character out weighs any possible benefit of attacking people.
Who are you to say that the punishment outweighs any possible benefit of attacking people? You really haven't thought this through, mate. Quick example: swap out your best gear for some cheap gear and go out to gank anyone who looks like they have some resources that will be dropped. If you die, who cares, you lost durability on some shitty gear? If you kill and turn purple, already a profit no matter what. If you kill and turn red, already a profit; if you die as a red, probably profit, depends on whether you'll drop gear or not. By the way, still waiting on your New World loot on death, big guy 😘
You are stating the obvious there is a dangerous level of risk because the punishment flags them and ensures they can't go to towns and are a target for everyone. All while ignoring or down playing the level of risk when it is open flagged pvp.
Sorry, but something that is obvious to you might not be obvious to me or someone else. It's obvious to me what are the advantages and disadvantages of using stream over loops in Java, is it obvious to you? Today I talked to someone in these forums who didn't know there was PvP everywhere in Ashes, they actually thought there was only PvP in the open sea after the last development update.
With that out of the way, I absolutely understand the risks added by an FFA PvP zone, I never said that removing corruption removes all risks, maybe that it lowers risk overall (because now there's no reds risking their gear). I'm almost positive that I've been consistent in saying "removing corruption removes the risks associated with corruption", but regardless of that, it's my opinion with the information we have so far, that corruption brings more potential risk than FFA PvP does to aggressors, since my premise is that victims will always get slammed. That can easily be changed, for example, if Intrepid says that now the open sea is full loot PvP, like someone suggested earlier. Then the open sea would be riskier than land, by a long shot.
If people aren't flagging and fighting there is less overall risk because of the height of the punishment ensuring constant pvp doesn't go on between people like that.
Exactly! That's one of the most important things the removal of corruption from the open sea indirectly told me: the corruption system doesn't work, most people won't flag and owPvP is stale. If that's the case then we have a big problem, and I believe that the decision to change the open sea, which was made "several months ago" as Steven has said, was just the first one to be announced, I will not be surprised if they tell us next month that they also removed corruption from open world dungeons and raids. I just hope that they tell us the reason why they did it, and not some b.s.
End of the day you are not trying to defend the corruption system, you are simply trying to push towards PVE content on the sea so you don't get attacked. Yet none of you will be honest saying you just want pure pve and not PvX.
Respectfully, I don't really care about what you think I'm doing or not, I don't have anything to hide and I definitely don't have any reason to lie or to pretend I'm something I'm not. What I am doing and will always do, regardless of what carebears or PvP elitists think, is share my concerns if I think that something is not good, doesn't make sense or could've been done better. I'm not better than you and you're not better than me, but I want this game to be its best possible version given the investment I made and information I had a few years ago, do you?
Here's me being honest: I'll PvP more than I should, Stranglethorn Vale and Gadgetzan are my favorite zones in WoW for a reason, I have many fun memories of making people ragequit and getting so mad for being corpse camped, good times. However, unlike you, I truly believe that Ashes needs PvP players as much as it needs PvE players, and I thought that Ashes had a great deal of balance and compromise between PvE and PvP. Now, with the change to the open sea and (speculation) future changes to come, I wonder how that balance is going to look like. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
All this discussion makes me hopeful they will address it next stream (since they pretty much usually do just a matter of when usually) just to put clear lines out there since I dont think there is any group cohesion on this subject.
It could very well change based off testing anyway since we are not even at alpha 2 stage yet as well [:
People seems to be confusing the 2 different types of risk and doing so disregarding the Open Sea risk...
Why the Corruption System risk is lower than the Open Sea risk?
The corruption system risk is lower because you have to choose to PK someone to be under the corruption risk, and can simple choose to not PK to take full advantage of the PvE and the resources present in the area there fore the area is less risky overall.
Are you under the risk of being PKed? Yes, and it will give you the 100% death penalty, but how likely to be PKed you are there, than under the risk of being killed by anyone in the Open sea?
In the Open Sea you are constantly under threat of being killed and is a constant kill threat for other people, you can't simple choose to play peacefully and take advantage of the PvE and resources present there, even if the death penalty in the sea is only 50%(We don't know yet) i can easily assure you that you are way more than twice more likely to be killed there.
In the Open sea there are no "victims" only killers that kill killers and the killers killed by other killers.
If you aren't ready to kill and to be killed the open seas just isn't for you.
Why 2 different pvp system?
To have a system that enforces a moral code on the average risk vs reward content and
a system with a higher risk vs higher reward content setup.
I for one wish they would just have FFA open world pvp everywhere, remove the corruption/combatant/non-combatant stuff. Just make everyone a "Combatant" and keep the reduced drop rate for gatherables/gold for everyone.
My favorite open world pvp experience was the ORIGINAL classic wow, before they added PvP currency/rewards and flying mounts (and ruined open world pvp). You had 1-2 "safe zones" to get use to the game, but by a certain level all game play outside of a town was risky business. You could gank, or be ganked. form a hunting party or call in guildies to take down gankers, etc. No flagging system to get in the way. It was great until Blizzard went and screwed it up.
In the Open Sea you are constantly under threat of being killed and is a constant kill threat for other people, you can't simple choose to play peacefully and take advantage of the PvE and resources present there, even if the death penalty in the sea is only 50%(We don't know yet) i can easily assure you that you are way more than twice more likely to be killed there.
In the Open sea there are no "victims" only killers that kill killers and the killers killed by other killers.
If you aren't ready to kill and to be killed the open seas just isn't for you.
It's funny because, to me, saying that the open seas was already dangerous enough with corruption is saying that the open sea was already the perfect place to be a pirate (duh) and to live as a corrupted player, which in turn is actually an argument not to remove corruption in the first place.
I'm personally going to do naval content very often, regardless of corruption being present or not, it's just an illogical decision to remove it, in my opinion. But I've talked enough on the other monstrosity of a merged thread, so I'll stop.
I for one wish they would just have FFA open world pvp everywhere, remove the corruption/combatant/non-combatant stuff. Just make everyone a "Combatant" and keep the reduced drop rate for gatherables/gold for everyone.
My favorite open world pvp experience was the ORIGINAL classic wow, before they added PvP currency/rewards and flying mounts (and ruined open world pvp). You had 1-2 "safe zones" to get use to the game, but by a certain level all game play outside of a town was risky business. You could gank, or be ganked. form a hunting party or call in guildies to take down gankers, etc. No flagging system to get in the way. It was great until Blizzard went and screwed it up.
If it was free pk everywhere it would be too much they still need a balance. I believe the balance will be node and guild wars between people. I've said earlier in my understanding of ther other side with my guess is the percent of OWpvp they want from corruption will be on the lower side, so less than 10% of the total pvp in the game.
*edit though this direction they are going in for the sea is cool and will had more variety of pvp content in the game. Something i feel a lot of mmorpgs lack is adding more and having variety of pvp content.
I for one wish they would just have FFA open world pvp everywhere, remove the corruption/combatant/non-combatant stuff. Just make everyone a "Combatant" and keep the reduced drop rate for gatherables/gold for everyone.
My favorite open world pvp experience was the ORIGINAL classic wow, before they added PvP currency/rewards and flying mounts (and ruined open world pvp). You had 1-2 "safe zones" to get use to the game, but by a certain level all game play outside of a town was risky business. You could gank, or be ganked. form a hunting party or call in guildies to take down gankers, etc. No flagging system to get in the way. It was great until Blizzard went and screwed it up.
Would you say that Pv(P/X) MMOs in general are better when this is the case, in terms of gameplay?
Brief explanation of why:
This sort of change is the type of 'silent dealbreaker' you get for certain types of game. It's the sort of change where it's not 'degrees' anymore. Before, people who don't like that style were around complaining about the Corruption system because they were thinking 'this won't be harsh enough', but they had a reason to engage and talk.
This type of change wouldn't get as much voice. There's no reason to say anything, you just 'conclude the game isn't for you and move on' if you weren't already really committed to playing it. So I'm interested in what the overall gameplay loop advantage you experience, is.
I for one wish they would just have FFA open world pvp everywhere, remove the corruption/combatant/non-combatant stuff. Just make everyone a "Combatant" and keep the reduced drop rate for gatherables/gold for everyone.
My favorite open world pvp experience was the ORIGINAL classic wow, before they added PvP currency/rewards and flying mounts (and ruined open world pvp). You had 1-2 "safe zones" to get use to the game, but by a certain level all game play outside of a town was risky business. You could gank, or be ganked. form a hunting party or call in guildies to take down gankers, etc. No flagging system to get in the way. It was great until Blizzard went and screwed it up.
Would you say that Pv(P/X) MMOs in general are better when this is the case, in terms of gameplay?
Brief explanation of why:
This sort of change is the type of 'silent dealbreaker' you get for certain types of game. It's the sort of change where it's not 'degrees' anymore. Before, people who don't like that style were around complaining about the Corruption system because they were thinking 'this won't be harsh enough', but they had a reason to engage and talk.
This type of change wouldn't get as much voice. There's no reason to say anything, you just 'conclude the game isn't for you and move on' if you weren't already really committed to playing it. So I'm interested in what the overall gameplay loop advantage you experience, is.
Doesn't always make it better in terms of gameplay as there can be something that is too much and lead to griefing more often rather than it being limited within rule sets. People may choose to fight more than progress a node properly and rather than having the highs and lows to are constantly at a high. It taeks very certain game design to make it work and not feel as clustered.
Limiting with corruption can add a lot more to the social network between guilds and in this case guilds and nodes. Where you can direct your pvp towards groups and different guilds form alliances or start wars. It helps grow a social element and push people towards them, even more so when the corruption punishment as on the higher side. Meaning to focus on owPvP there is more focus on using guild wars and node wars. That way a group isn't killing everyone and people have their different focusing of guilds they war with.
I think FFA on the seas is implemented for the same reason as in Archeage: it's fun. I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of pirate faction/node added in the game as well.
I also believe the corruption system should be removed. Just add limitations that you cannot attack someone more than 5-10 lvls below you, and create safe zones at popular quest hubs, farm-gathering spots, etc... This way PVE players will be mostly protected.
They want to avoid alienating PVE players. But by adding hardcore elements, like losing gear and inventory items will do exactly the same, only with players who enjoy open world PVP.
Comments
What so you mean you do drop loot on death already.
Hence meaning they want to stop pvp on the Ocean it isn't about risk, word is just being used because it is convenient instead of what they actually want to say, which is people should be punished so they arent motivated to flag.
There is far more risk when it is open pvp and everyone knows that, everything is a potential threat. When you see a boat in the distance it will be a red flag where it could be foe or friend.
I think we are talking about different things.
When you say 'risk of corruption' do you mean the risk that comes after you gain corruption and as a red you are in more risk of getting attacked and losing items?
Yes, i'm talking about the risks associated with having corruption.
How did I not know that he did a video on this? Now that I've watched it, I definitely think I can see it, but I don't like the effects...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
In my opinion saying that corruption isn't a risk unless you choose to take it is like saying the law isn't a "risk" unless you choose to break it.
Obviously you might break the law unknowingly or by accident, but you can't become corrupted by accident, still I believe that the analogy stands.
You are probably able to make that sentence make sense, but I believe there's another simpler explanation which is more logical: corruption is a deterrent against attacking other players, regardless if you'll do it or not, but it doesn't stop you from doing it. Is it good or is it bad? I don't know, but I don't think that's the topic of the current discussion.
Regarding the idea of raising the death penalty, I believe that you didn't understand Dygz' point. He's talking about the fact that non-combatants lose twice as much as combatants, therefore it doesn't matter if you're an aggressor, a victim, fight back or not, a PvE or a PvP player, the death penalties will be cut in half. The fact is that the mechanic which takes care of how much loot is lost on a owPvP death was removed, so now all sorts of "problems" exist.
Wait, what? Yeah, if corruption is removed from anywhere then the risks associated with it are also removed, that's the whole point of the debate: should they remove or should they not remove corruption from places? And, more importantly, why.
I also think that there's some confusion going on, at least I'm getting confused by the wording (or mental gymnastics, not sure yet). You'll only become corrupted if you choose to kill a non-combatant: true. However, you will always be subject to the corruption system regardless if you are the aggressor or the victim and that ultimately adds risk to the open world PvP. The aggressor has the power to decide if they will turn purple and somewhat decide if they will turn red. The victim has the power to decide if they will turn or remain purple, remain green or turn the aggressor red by not fighting back.
For that reason, because people have to consider the risk vs. reward when engaging in owPvP, the ocean has now lost a lot of its risk, because, as an aggressor, having the chance of losing gear is typically riskier and more dangerous than the certainty of losing resources on death.
I believe that everything I said is logical and factual, however, I'm not stating that this will make naval gameplay better or worse, I just think that nobody is able to state that either.
Now I understand the confusion.. when I talk about 'risk of corruption' I mean before a player makes the choice to go red.. Basically I am considering 'gaining corruption' as a risk in itself, not the risks a player has because he is already red.
You are missing the point when you are talking about punishments in the term with corruption and law. You are fully aware that the punishment is extremely high as well, which means a punishment on your character out weighs any possible benefit of attacking people.
You are stating the obvious there is a dangerous level of risk because the punishment flags them and ensures they can't go to towns and are a target for everyone. All while ignoring or down playing the level of risk when it is open flagged pvp.
If people aren't flagging and fighting there is less overall risk because of the height of the punishment ensuring constant pvp doesn't go on between people like that.
End of the day you are not trying to defend the corruption system, you are simply trying to push towards PVE content on the sea so you don't get attacked. Yet none of you will be honest saying you just want pure pve and not PvX.
If my understanding is correct, a portion of gatherables will be dropped upon being killed by another player and can be looted.
No it's more risk, you can be attacked at any time. Just because someone likes pvp doesn't mean it's less risk.
Because everyone is a combatant and when you are a combatant that's the death penalty just like on land. Why would you want to change the system even more? That's the only change really, everyone is purple in the open ocean right?
You could be attacked at any time before.
The 'defender' was in the same situation on land. The only 'power' you had on land was 'the option to give Corruption instead at the cost of materials'.
@mcstackerson @Dygz
imo, the destruction of a high tier ship should cost a lot of materials to repair. That would ensure there actually being a high risk
And I might circumvent that - if I were going to play - by using an aquatic mount to explore the Open Seas, rather than a ship.
I apologize if this has already been answered. I just had a specific question.
No need to apologize. And to say it was answered wouldn't be entirely accurate. More or less discussed over several viewpoints. I suggest checking it out, but there's a lot to read.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53457/corruption-system-in-relation-to-auto-flagging-in-open-sea/p1
if you use a mount, you arent threatening to break other ships with your own ship, so it seems quite fair not to incur this penalty as a mount user.
Yea, but the protections are gone. You CAN be attacked on land, but you can be a noncombatant on land which offers you some sort of protection because you won't seem worth killing. If you do you will be considered a murderer and bounty hunters will go after you, among other things. Doesn't happen in the sea.
Oh ok, I thought you were talking about both sides, not just the 'defender/victim' side.
Who are you to say that the punishment outweighs any possible benefit of attacking people? You really haven't thought this through, mate. Quick example: swap out your best gear for some cheap gear and go out to gank anyone who looks like they have some resources that will be dropped. If you die, who cares, you lost durability on some shitty gear? If you kill and turn purple, already a profit no matter what. If you kill and turn red, already a profit; if you die as a red, probably profit, depends on whether you'll drop gear or not. By the way, still waiting on your New World loot on death, big guy 😘
Sorry, but something that is obvious to you might not be obvious to me or someone else. It's obvious to me what are the advantages and disadvantages of using stream over loops in Java, is it obvious to you? Today I talked to someone in these forums who didn't know there was PvP everywhere in Ashes, they actually thought there was only PvP in the open sea after the last development update.
With that out of the way, I absolutely understand the risks added by an FFA PvP zone, I never said that removing corruption removes all risks, maybe that it lowers risk overall (because now there's no reds risking their gear). I'm almost positive that I've been consistent in saying "removing corruption removes the risks associated with corruption", but regardless of that, it's my opinion with the information we have so far, that corruption brings more potential risk than FFA PvP does to aggressors, since my premise is that victims will always get slammed. That can easily be changed, for example, if Intrepid says that now the open sea is full loot PvP, like someone suggested earlier. Then the open sea would be riskier than land, by a long shot.
Exactly! That's one of the most important things the removal of corruption from the open sea indirectly told me: the corruption system doesn't work, most people won't flag and owPvP is stale. If that's the case then we have a big problem, and I believe that the decision to change the open sea, which was made "several months ago" as Steven has said, was just the first one to be announced, I will not be surprised if they tell us next month that they also removed corruption from open world dungeons and raids. I just hope that they tell us the reason why they did it, and not some b.s.
Respectfully, I don't really care about what you think I'm doing or not, I don't have anything to hide and I definitely don't have any reason to lie or to pretend I'm something I'm not. What I am doing and will always do, regardless of what carebears or PvP elitists think, is share my concerns if I think that something is not good, doesn't make sense or could've been done better. I'm not better than you and you're not better than me, but I want this game to be its best possible version given the investment I made and information I had a few years ago, do you?
Here's me being honest: I'll PvP more than I should, Stranglethorn Vale and Gadgetzan are my favorite zones in WoW for a reason, I have many fun memories of making people ragequit and getting so mad for being corpse camped, good times. However, unlike you, I truly believe that Ashes needs PvP players as much as it needs PvE players, and I thought that Ashes had a great deal of balance and compromise between PvE and PvP. Now, with the change to the open sea and (speculation) future changes to come, I wonder how that balance is going to look like. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Cheers
It could very well change based off testing anyway since we are not even at alpha 2 stage yet as well [:
Why the Corruption System risk is lower than the Open Sea risk?
The corruption system risk is lower because you have to choose to PK someone to be under the corruption risk, and can simple choose to not PK to take full advantage of the PvE and the resources present in the area there fore the area is less risky overall.
Are you under the risk of being PKed? Yes, and it will give you the 100% death penalty, but how likely to be PKed you are there, than under the risk of being killed by anyone in the Open sea?
In the Open Sea you are constantly under threat of being killed and is a constant kill threat for other people, you can't simple choose to play peacefully and take advantage of the PvE and resources present there, even if the death penalty in the sea is only 50%(We don't know yet) i can easily assure you that you are way more than twice more likely to be killed there.
In the Open sea there are no "victims" only killers that kill killers and the killers killed by other killers.
If you aren't ready to kill and to be killed the open seas just isn't for you.
Why 2 different pvp system?
To have a system that enforces a moral code on the average risk vs reward content and
a system with a higher risk vs higher reward content setup.
Aren't we all sinners?
My favorite open world pvp experience was the ORIGINAL classic wow, before they added PvP currency/rewards and flying mounts (and ruined open world pvp). You had 1-2 "safe zones" to get use to the game, but by a certain level all game play outside of a town was risky business. You could gank, or be ganked. form a hunting party or call in guildies to take down gankers, etc. No flagging system to get in the way. It was great until Blizzard went and screwed it up.
It's funny because, to me, saying that the open seas was already dangerous enough with corruption is saying that the open sea was already the perfect place to be a pirate (duh) and to live as a corrupted player, which in turn is actually an argument not to remove corruption in the first place.
I'm personally going to do naval content very often, regardless of corruption being present or not, it's just an illogical decision to remove it, in my opinion. But I've talked enough on the other monstrosity of a merged thread, so I'll stop.
If it was free pk everywhere it would be too much they still need a balance. I believe the balance will be node and guild wars between people. I've said earlier in my understanding of ther other side with my guess is the percent of OWpvp they want from corruption will be on the lower side, so less than 10% of the total pvp in the game.
*edit though this direction they are going in for the sea is cool and will had more variety of pvp content in the game. Something i feel a lot of mmorpgs lack is adding more and having variety of pvp content.
Would you say that Pv(P/X) MMOs in general are better when this is the case, in terms of gameplay?
Brief explanation of why:
This sort of change is the type of 'silent dealbreaker' you get for certain types of game. It's the sort of change where it's not 'degrees' anymore. Before, people who don't like that style were around complaining about the Corruption system because they were thinking 'this won't be harsh enough', but they had a reason to engage and talk.
This type of change wouldn't get as much voice. There's no reason to say anything, you just 'conclude the game isn't for you and move on' if you weren't already really committed to playing it. So I'm interested in what the overall gameplay loop advantage you experience, is.
Doesn't always make it better in terms of gameplay as there can be something that is too much and lead to griefing more often rather than it being limited within rule sets. People may choose to fight more than progress a node properly and rather than having the highs and lows to are constantly at a high. It taeks very certain game design to make it work and not feel as clustered.
Limiting with corruption can add a lot more to the social network between guilds and in this case guilds and nodes. Where you can direct your pvp towards groups and different guilds form alliances or start wars. It helps grow a social element and push people towards them, even more so when the corruption punishment as on the higher side. Meaning to focus on owPvP there is more focus on using guild wars and node wars. That way a group isn't killing everyone and people have their different focusing of guilds they war with.
I also believe the corruption system should be removed. Just add limitations that you cannot attack someone more than 5-10 lvls below you, and create safe zones at popular quest hubs, farm-gathering spots, etc... This way PVE players will be mostly protected.
They want to avoid alienating PVE players. But by adding hardcore elements, like losing gear and inventory items will do exactly the same, only with players who enjoy open world PVP.